Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13457/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13457 of 2010
======================================
HASMUKH
GOVINDBHAI - Petitioner
Versus
MANAGER
- AASHIMA SPIN FAB LTD - Respondent
======================================
Appearance :
MS
HINA DESAI for the Petitioner.
None for the
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 13/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or
direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
06/08/2004 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Review
Application Nos.1/2004 and 2/2004 in Appeal (I.C.) Nos.114/2001 and
117/ 2001.
2. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that there is a delay of 6
years in preferring the present petition. The petitioner has tried to
explain the delay by making necessary averments in paragraph-6 in the
present application. However, averments mentioned in the said
paragraph are factually incorrect. It is the case on behalf of the
petitioner that after few months, he visited the office of the
advocate for getting his papers but it was not traceable and,
therefore, the petitioner has to get copies of the papers back from
the office of the Labour & Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. However,
it appears that the very petitioner has produced on record original
certified copy of the judgement and award passed in Review
Applications, which is dated 11th August,2004. Therefore,
statement made on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently he got
fresh copy from the office of the Labour & Industrial Court,
Ahmedabad, is not correct. Thus, it appears that he has not come with
clean hands before this Court to condone the delay of 6 years in the
preferring the present petition.
Even
otherwise considering the impugned order more particularly Para-5, it
appears that the order has been passed by the consent/consensus
between the parties. Even the representative of the Union had
remained present and the impugned order came to be passed. That there
was a Settlement between the Management and representative of the
Union, through whom, the petitioner was represented, it can further
be inferred from the fact that the very petitioner withdrew the
Recovery Application No.2339 of 2004 on 02/10/2007, which was filed
to recover the amount due and payable under the order passed by the
Industrial Court,Ahmedabad in Appeal (IC) No.114 of 2001, which was
subsequently reviewed. Therefore, it appears that the impugned order
passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad dated 06/08/2004 came to be
accepted by the petitioner and subsequently for whatever reason and
as after thought, the present petition has been preferred by the
petitioner in the year 2010.
3. In
view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no
substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top